Carpenters Dist. Council

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Carpenters District Council of Detroit , Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and Shepard Marine Construction Company. Cases 7-CP-133(1) and 7-CP-133(2) February 23, 1972 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On September 9, 1971, Trial Examiner Harry R. Hinkes issued the attached Decision in this proceeding dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Thereafter, the Charging Party filed exceptions, the General Counsel filed exceptions with a supporting brief, and the Re- spondent cross-exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions, brief, and cross-exceptions, and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner only insofar as his rulings, conclusions, and recommendations are consistent with this Decision and Order. The object of the picketing following the election lost on March 23, 1971, by the Respondent Carpenters' District Council of Detroit was found by the Trial Examiner to be the publicizing of substandard condi- tions. At that time the picket signs used were consistent with an area standards objective. Signs used in earlier picketing-picketing began in October when the Charging Party failed to sign a new standard agreement as requested by Respondent-had stated that Charging Party Shepard had no union contract, and later that Shepard had violated its agreement with the Union.' On January 18, 1971, the parties met; Mazurek, president of Shepard Marine, was again asked by the Union to sign a contract but refused for economic rea- sons, and on January 21 the Union sent Shepard a letter saying that it did not intend to interfere with the rights of Shepard's employees to work without becoming members, or to make any demand on Shepard to sign a collective-bargaining agreement with it, but did in- tend to inform the public that Shepard's employees were working under substandard conditions. There- after, when picketing occurred, the signs carried an area standards legend. In dismissing the complaint the Trial Examiner noted that the picketing was neither "continuous or simultaneous," the occurrences being As found by the Trial Examiner certain fringe benefits due the Detroit Council based on an audit of 1968-69 were paid by Shepard in November 1970 spaced in time at a series of construction projects, and concluded that on and after March 23 the purpose was not prohibited by Section 8(b)(7)(B) which proscribes picketing for recognition or bargaining where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) has been conducted. Concerning the validity of the recent election, the Trial Examiner found that he was bound by the certificate of election results.2 He did not treat the unit issue. He also made no mention of the 8(a)(5) charge filed by Respondent the day before the election and the appeal of its dismissal thereafter.' In its cross-exceptions the Respondent attacks the validity of the March 23 election as held in an inappro- priate unit, and contends that the Trial Examiner should not have considered himself bound by the cer- tification in view of his finding that a valid "consent agreement" had been signed by Mazurek on January 13, 1971, with the Saginaw Valley Carpenters District Council. It views this agreement as barring Shepard from seeking an election.4 The General Counsel excepts to the Trial Examiner's failure to find that the picketing after the election had a recognitional object, emphasizing in its brief that the 8(a)(5) charge was filed by the Union just before the election and appealed thereafter. The Charging Party takes exception to the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the object of the picketing actually changed from recog- nition to publicizing substandard conditions, contend- ing that the whole purpose of the labor dispute was recognition and a contract.' The election petition in Case 7-RM-842 was filed by Shepard Marine, after sporadic picketing from October to February 1971 An expedited election pursuant to Section 8(b)(7)(C) and Section 9(c) was authorized by the Regional Director on March 12, in the following unit all employees employed by Shepard Marine Construction Company, but excluding all office clerical employees, operating engineers , professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act The tally showed 11 eligible voters no votes for and 7 against the Union ' This was the charge in Case 7-CA-8576 The Regional Director's dis- missal was appealed to the General Counsel on April 7, and the appeal denied April 30, 1971 See fn 4 below 4 This agreement with the Saginaw Valley Carpenters District Council is a single-page document containing a provision to the effect that the signa- tory employer agrees to be bound by the terms of the current agreement of "any" other Carpenters District Council within the State of Michigan The 8(a)(5) charge was based on an alleged failure and refusal to honor this agreement "whereby it agreed to recognize Carpenters District Council of Detroit when performing work within the aforesaid Union's geographical jurisdiction" and the appeal-which was denied-urged that an 8(a)(5) complaint should be issued based on the agreement with the Saginaw Valley Council, as well as the current agreement between the Detroit Council and "the Employer Association in this area " ' Charging Party and General Counsel except to the Trial Examiner's failure to credit an oral request for a contract made, according to Mazurek, by Union Secretary-Treasurer Harrington in October, at the site first pick- eted Charging Party points out that written requests by the Respondent for a contract were being made about the same time and were credited Harring- ton was present at the hearing but did not testify The Trial Examiner discredited Mazurek in this respect because of his difficulty in recalling events and his failure to mention this incident in an affidavit he executed for the Board On this record we see no reason to discredit this testimony of Mazurek that such a request was made 195 NLRB No. 97 CARPENTERS DIST. COUNCIL 531 From the above we conclude, contrary to the Trial Examiner, that the General Counsel has sustained his burden of proof to establish that the picketing by the Union at the Port Huron seawall job on and after March 23 , 1971, had a recognitional or organizational objective within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B). Re- spondent's filing of the 8(a)(5) charge immediately before the election, and its participation in the election and later appeal from dismissal of the charge-factors which the Trial Examiner did not discuss-convince us that the picketing at the pertinent time was recogni- tional.6 The question remains whether the election was actually a valid election. If not, there can be no viola- tion found. In this proceeding Respondent 's answer denied para- graph 12 of the complaint concerning the election held "among the pile driving employees of Shepard." Dur- ing the hearing, it amended its answer to contend that the election was invalid. Thus, invalidity based upon unit was not here pleaded affirmatively, as in the Ameri- can Bread case urged by the Respondent as control- ling.' The Trial Examiner declined to accept evidence on the validity of the election but suggested an offer of proof as to what Respondent would prove if given the chance to demonstrate that the election was not valid, later renewing this suggestion when a copy of the Sagi- naw Valley agreement was received in evidence.' The Respondent made no offer of proof and did not in- troduce a copy of the expired contract with the Detroit Council. In its brief to the Trial Examiner it contended that the unit had included "only pile drivers"-citing a transcript - page containing testimony of Mazurek- and asserted that the Employer also employed "equip- ment operators, electricians, tugboat operators, divers and laborers," from which it concluded that the elec- In November 1970 a decertification petition was filed in Case 7-RD- 912, which was dismissed on December 15, 1970 , because of the Respond- ent Union 's disclaimer ' American Bread Company, 170 NLRB 91, 97, 103, where the Board, after remand to the Trial Examiner to allow the Respondent to adduce testimony in support of its contention that the unit found by the Regional Director in the RM case was inappropriate , affirmed the conclusion of the Supplemental Decision that the unit was inappropriate because of the inclu- sion of transport drivers As the election was held in an inappropriate unit, picketing after certification of that election involved no violation of Sec 8(b)(7)(B) In that case the picketing was for initial recognition, following denial of a demand based on cards At the remand hearing the respondent union "took the burden of proof" rn support of its contention that 11 persons found to be in the unit should have been excluded We see no merit in Respondent 's contention that the skeletal Saginaw Valley consent agreement bound the parties not to seek an election We view this as an 8(f) type contract , which by specific proviso to that section shall not bar a petition filed pursuant to Sec 9(c) ' The copy of this agreement was offered by Respondent's attorney for two reasons ( 1) as relating to Mr Mazurek's credibility with respect to not having signed such an agreement, and (2) as relating to the Respondent's contention concerning the validity of the election under Sec 9(c) The Trial Examiner pointed out that he was not receiving it for the second purpose in view of his ruling not to receive any evidence concerning the invalidity of the election , but suggested that it might be made part of an offer of proof so that the Board would be in a position to consider whether or not the ruling to exclude such evidence was proper tion unit included more than the contract unit, hence resulted in an invalid election. Now, in its cross-excep- tions, it merely reiterates the asserted inappropriate- ness of the election unit, again without effort to sub- stantiate this claim though presumably the Respondent's contract defined the unit. Appropriately this issue should have been raised in the RM proceed- ing. It might also have been raised initially in this pro- ceeding, but instead it was raised by amendment of the answer, unexplicated by an offer of proof in lieu of testimony. On this record we see no basis for invalidat- ing the underlying election on the ground that an all- employee unit excluding principally operating engi- neers and office clerical employees was inappropriate.' Accordingly, we find that the election held on March 23, 1971, was a valid election within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act, and that the Respondent's pick- eting of Shepard Marine at the Port Huron seawall job on and after that date violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Shepard Marine Construction Company is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By picketing Shepard Marine at the Port Huron seawall job on and after March 23, 1971, with an object of organizing, or gaining recognition for, a unit of the Company's employees although a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act, not won by the Respondent, had been conducted for such employees within the preceding 12 months, Respondent has engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9 We note that the record shows that Charging Party's marine construc- tion work "entails pile driving and dredging " We also note that the unit described in the exhibit which consists of a segment of the Saginaw Valley District Council consent agreement, entitled "Pile Driving Supplemental Agreement," purports to cover "employees performing work on Pile Driv- ing Operations" and goes on to describe such work in terms that would appear to encompass all field employees of a marine construction contractor Although Mazurek 's testimony concerning coverage of the expired contract with the Detroit Council was that "laborers, operators and people that have done painting" were "not" covered, he also testified to the versatility of his "regular" employees , that is, "pile drivers and laborers and operators, weld- ers One may be driving this afternoon and tomorrow he might be driving a pile He might be doing welding tomorrow " 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth herein, occurring in connection with the Company's opera- tions as described in section I of the Trial Examiner's Decision, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela- tionship to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burden- ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist there- from, and take certain affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act. In accord with our usual practice the 1-year statutory ban against this picketing shall run from the date when picketing ceased approximately 3 weeks after the March 23, 1971, elec- tion. Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas (Custom Catering, Inc., d/b/a Blue Onion), 182 NLRB 250, fn. 10. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Coun- ties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representatives , shall: 1. Cease and desist from picketing or causing to be picketed Shepard Marine Construction Company with an object of either forcing or requiring the Company to sign a contract with it or in any other manner to recog- nize or bargain with it as the representative of the Company's employees, or forcing or requiring the em- ployees to accept or select it as their collective-bargain- ing representative , where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted among the said employees and has not been won by the Respondent. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Post at its business office and meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Direc- 10 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals , the words in the notice reading "POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD " tor for Region 7, after being duly signed by Respond- ent's authorized representative , shall be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to members are customarily posted . Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (b) Sign and mail to the Regional Director for Re- gion 7 sufficient copies of said notice, to be on forms provided by him, for posting by Shepard Marine Con- struction Company, if willing, at places where it cus- tomarily posts notices to its employees. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply here- with. APPENDIX NOTICE To MEMBERS POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT picket or cause to be picketed Shepard Marine Construction Company with an object of forcing or requiring the Company to sign a contract with us or in any other manner to recog- nize or bargain with us as your collective-bargain- ing representative where within the preceding 12 months a valid election under Section 9(c) of the Act has been conducted among you and we have not won that election. CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF DETROIT, WAYNE AND OAKLAND COUNTIES AND VICINITY, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO (Labor Organization) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boule- CARPENTERS DIST . COUNCIL 533 yard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226- 3200. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HARRY R HINKES, Trial Examiner- The charge in Case 7-CP-133(l) was filed by Shepard Marine Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as Shepard or Employer, on March 30 and served on Carpenters District Council of De- troit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL- CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union or Respondent, on March 31, 1971. The charge in Case 7-C-133(2) was also filed by Shepard on April 5, 1971, and served upon Respond- ent on or about April 7, 1971. Pursuant to these charges a complaint was issued on April 12, 1971, alleging that the Union had picketed Shepard on March 15, 1971, to compel Shepard's piledriving employees to accept the Union as their collective-bargaining representative and to compel Shepard to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the repre- sentative of its pile-driving employees although the Union had not been certified as such representative , and a valid election had been conducted within the preceding 12 months. These acts were alleged to be unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act. By answer duly filed Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tices. A hearing was held before me in Detroit, Michigan, on June 3, 4, and 15, 1971, at which all parties were afforded full opportunity to be represented, examine witnesses, and ad- duce relevant evidence.' At the conclusion of the hearing counsel were invited to make oral argument and counsel for the General Counsel made a brief presentation. Briefs have been received from counsel for the Charging Party as well as counsel for the Respondent, and have been given careful consideration Upon the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following. FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Shepard, a Michigan corporation, maintains a principal office at Mount Clemens , Michigan, and a branch office at New Orleans , Louisiana It is engaged in the business of marine construction and during its fiscal year ending June 15, 1970, its gross revenues exceeded $500,000. During the same period of time it purchased wood and steel piling and other materials valued in excess of $50,000, which materials were shipped to Shepard's jobsites in the State of Michigan directly from points outside the State of Michigan . Since on or about February 22, 1971, Shepard has been engaged in the con- struction of a shoreline erosion control wall for and in the city of Port Huron, Michigan, where it employs approximately five employees on the job. Shepard will purchase and have shipped to its Port Huron jobsite from points located outside the State of Michigan steel sheet and other materials valued in excess of $50,000 The complaint alleges and I find that Shepard is now and has been at all times material herein an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ' The typographical errors in the transcript of the proceedings are hereby corrected The complaint alleges, Respondent's answer admits, and I find that Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne and Oakland Counties and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or Respondent, is and has been at all times material herein a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Shepard was a party to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union which expired in May 1970. On or about June 5, the Union sent a letter to Shepard requesting Shepard to be available to sign a new standard agreement when com- pleted. Again around September 18 and October 5, Shepard received additional letters from the Union requesting that Shepard sign the new agreement . Shepard did not comply and on October 28 wrote the Union that it was its understanding that "we have no active contract with the Carpenters District Council at this time." Shepard had jobs under contract at the Beacon Cove Marina in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, the Grand Trunk Rail- road Yards in Port Huron, Michigan, and Botsford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, the Andor project in Southfield, Michi- gan, the soil erosion seawall in Mt. Clemens, Michigan, and the soil erosion seawall in Port Huron, Michigan. 1. The Beacon Cove Marina The uncontradicted testimony of Robert Rausch and Wes- ley Biland, employees of Shepard, establishes that in the fall of 1970, early in October, Don Sudau, an admitted business agent of Union Local 674, came out to the job and told Rausch to shut the job down because the Company was in arrears on benefits. Shepard ignored Sudau's order. 2. The Grand Trunk Railroad job The uncontradicted testimony of James Mazurek, presi- dent of Shepard Marine, establishes that Shepard started this job in the first week of October 1970. Amos Warwick, an admitted business agent of Carpenters Local 1067, told Mazurek that he would shut Shepard down because Shepard was behind in its fringe benefit payments to the Union. On October 5 picketing commenced at the Grand Trunk job, in which activity Warwick participated. The picket signs, which were not introduced in evidence, were described as stating that Shepard had no union contract. This language, however, was changed about 10 days later when the signs recited that Shepard had violated its agreement with the Union. The picketing continued and later that month truckers entering and leaving the project experienced some of the picketers throwing stones and breaking their truck windows Don Sze- linski, a truckdriver at that project, testified that George McDonald, an admitted business agent for the Union, tried to force his way into the cab of a truck just before the rock throwing began, and a union committeeman threw a rock through Szelinski's truck window. According to Szelinski, Warwick told him they were picketing because Shepard did not have a contract. Mazurek further testified that the em- ployees of the Austin Company, which was also involved in the Grand Trunk Railroad job, refused to cross the picket lines As a result, a meeting was held on October 30, attended by Mazurek, Warwick, Jim King, an admitted business agent of Carpenters Local 19, John Harrington, an admitted agent of the Union, and others, at which, according to Mazurek's testimony, Harrington asked Mazurek if Mazurek would consider signing with the Union now, but Mazurek declined. 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The picketing continued until around November 10 when Shepard's contract was cancelled. 3. The Botsford Hospital job Shepard's next job was at the Botsford Hospital which commenced sometime during the first half of December 1970. On the day Shepard was scheduled to start its operation Mazurek was notified that picketing had started and all work had shut down. Mazurek then cancelled his contract, moving his equipment off the jobsite without commencing any opera- tions there. David Taylor, construction manager at Botsford, testified that he conferred with union representatives, includ- ing Harrington. Harrington allegedly told Taylor that Shep- ard had been working with a consent contract, that there was some disagreement concerning fringe benefits, but he did not say that the pickets would continue until Shepard signed a contract with the Union. 4. The Andor job William Korte, president of the Maurice V. Rogers Com- pany, a general contractor, testified that Shepard did piledriv- ing for him at this jobsite starting around December 16. On December 18 he learned that a 24-hour strike notice had been given by the Carpenters Union. George McDonald, the Un- ion's business agent, told him that the job was to be shut down because he was using a nonunion subcontractor, Shep- ard Marine. Shepard left the job and Korte finished its work. There was no picketing 5 The Mt. Clemens seawall job Shepard commenced this job around January 11, 1971. On January 18, Mazurek met with union representatives. Mazu- rek explained that he could not live with the union contract because nonunion contractors were taking work away from him. The Union refused to abandon their standard contract but offered to allow Mazurek to use smaller crews. Mazurek told the Union he was not paying union scale and could not afford to do so. Several days later the Union sent Shepard a letter dated January 21 which read in part: This Union has ascertained that wages and rates of pay for your pile-driver employees on this project are sub- stantially below that which has been negotiated by the Union with contractors engaged in marine construction in this area. We have found that you are free to underbid fair contractors on work of this sort because of the sub- standard wages and benefits involved. We wish to inform you that this Union does not intend to interfere with the rights of your employees to work without becoming members of our organization nor does it make any demand upon you to sign a collective bar- gaining agreement with us. However , it is our intention to inform the populace in this area that your employees work under sub-standard conditions. We shall do this by means of peaceful primary picketing and other forms of publicity. On or about January 21 picketing began at this jobsite. According to Mazurek, the signs read "Shepard Marine Con- struction Company admits that it pays substandard wages as paid by the Carpenters in this area." At first there were some 40 to 50 pickets at the jobsite, but this number diminished until the picketing ended on or about the first of February. Shepard's work continued at this project for some 3 or 4 weeks after the picketing ended. According to employee Rausch, Union Agent Warwick told him that he ought to get Shepard to sign a contract so that Rausch would get more money for his crew. 6. The Port Huron seawall Shepard filed a petition for an election among its field employees on February 9, 1971, and began the Port Huron seawall job around February 15. Picketing by the Union started around March 10. According to Mazurek, pickets, including Warwick, carried signs that Shepard did not pay prevailing rates. During the week of March 18 Warwick was seen taking pictures of the trucks entering and leaving the jobsite and he told Mazurek that this was being done to demonstrate that the trucks were not damaged. Some scuffl- ing ensued between the pickets and Shepard's employees but ended when Warwick interceded. On March 23 an election was held purusant to the Regional Director's order. A majority of votes were cast against repre- sentation by the Union. Picketing, however, continued up until the election. B. The Alleged Violation of 8(b)(7)(B) As noted above, the picketing at the Port Huron seawall job which started around March 10 continued until the elec- tion of March 23 and for some time thereafter. Some wit- nesses testified that the picketing continued for 1 week after the election while others testified that it continued from 2 to 3 weeks after the election. In any event the signs carried by the pickets did not change and stated only that Shepard did not pay carpenters the prevailing rates. In the first week of April installers arrived at the jobsite to install electric service. Union Agent Warwick spoke to the crew of the electric company after which the crew left. On April 10 the telephone company sent an installer to install telephones on the job. Warwick spoke to the installer, who refused to cross the picket line and left. Phones were installed about a month later when there were no pickets. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents to picket or threaten to picket any employer where an object thereof is forcing or requiring an employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees, (unless such labor organization is currently certified as the representative of such employees) where within the preceding 12 months a valid election had been conducted. There is no doubt that an election was conducted on March 23, 1971, at which time the Union was not certified as the representative of Shepard's employees. Counsel for the Un- ion, however, aqgues that the election of March 23 was not valid. At the hearing he offered to establish that Shepard had executed a consent agreement with the Saginaw Valley Car- penters District Council (not be confused with the Respond- ent herein), by which Shepard agreed to be bound by all the terms and conditions of the most current collective-bargain- ing agreements of any other Carpenters District Council within the State of Michigan; that, accordingly, Shepard was bound by the collective-bargaining agreement which the Re- spondent Union had executed with local employers following the expiration of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Union and Shepard which expired on April 30, 1970. I ruled that I deemed myself bound by the certification which was issued on April 1, 1971. See the Decision of the Trial Examiner in Local 334 (Exquisite Construction Company), 183 NLRB No. 62. However, inasmuch as Mazurek in his testimony denied signing such a consent agreement, counsel for the Union was permitted to offer testimony to discredit Mazurek. Counsel for the Union offered the testimony of Richard Bowen, a recognized handwriting expert, who tes- tified that Respondent's Exhibit 2, the consent agreement of CARPENTERS DIST COUNCIL 535 January 13, 1971, was signed by Mazurek. I credit his tes- timony and find that a valid agreement had been executed by Mazurek and the Saginaw Valley Council requiring Mazurek to observe the terms of any collective-bargaining agreement executed by the Respondent Union herein. Under such cir- cumstances it would appear that Shepard's petition of Febru- ary 9, 1971, may have been barred by the consent agreement of January 13. Hereafter a contract, regardless of its duration, will bar, during its entire term, petitions of either the employer or the union who are parties to the agreement. Absorbent Cotton Company, 137 NLRB 908. Nevertheless, I am bound by the certification of April 1, 1971. Respondent may raise these issues with the Board by appro- priate exceptions to this Decision. Counsel for the Union also appears to argue that the Re- spondent should not be responsible for picketing which was engaged in by various locals of the area. As noted above, however, George McDonald, an admitted business agent for the Respondent, participated in the picketing on the Grand Trunk Railroad job. Harrington, another admitted agent of the Respondent Union, was involved in the picketing at the Botsford Hospital job. On the Andor job it was McDonald who threatened the shutdown because the general contractor was using Shepard. Business agents of the locals, such as Sudan, Warwick, and King, participated in other activities described above. In many instances they acted in concert with officers of the Respondent Union. Finally, the constitution and bylaws of the Respondent Union give the secretary- treasurer of the Respondent Union supervision and direction over all business agents of the locals, and reserves to the Respondent Union legislative and executive powers on all matters relating to the general interest and welfare of the locals. I conclude that the activities of the Union members and representatives at the various jobsites cited above were cooperative and coordinated, in'short, a common undertak- ing, and that the activities of each can be and should be imputed to all. Having established the responsibility of the Respondent Union for the activities described at the various jobsites men- tioned above, and having ruled that the validity of the elec- tion cannot be attacked before me in view of the certification issued by the Regional Director, the only issue remaining is the object of the picketing which occurred on and after March 23, the date of the election. Such picketing was unlaw- ful if an object of such picketing was to force Shepard to recognize or bargain with the Union. The picket signs at the Port Huron seawall job, however, merely protested Shepard's substandard wage rates. Such picketing is not recognitional picketing and does not come within the terms of Section 8(b)(7). The Board has stated in Laborers Local No. 41 (Calu- met Contractors Association), 133 NLRB 512: Respondent's admitted objective to require the [em- ployer] to conform standards of employment to those prevailing in the area, is not tantamount to, nor does it have an objective of, recognition or bargaining. A union may legitimately be concerned that a particular em- ployer is undermining area standards of employment by maintaining lower standards. It may be willing to forego recognition and bargaining provided subnormal working conditions are eliminated from area considerations. Counsel for the Charging Party correctly states that "de- termination of the Union's objective is a question of fact," citing N.L.R.B. v. Local 182, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 314 F.2d 53 (C.A. 2). He is also correct when he states "a union's attempt to disassociate picketing from recognitional purposes does not succeed simply by suspend- ing picketing for a short period of time, disavowing any claims of representation in letter form, and utilizing wording consistent with area standards objectives on picket signs," citing Knit Goods Workers Local 155, 167 NLRB 763. He argues that the Union's "pattern of conduct over a period of time extending from May of 1970 to the date of the election, during which the Union picketed many of the jobsites of Shepard for the obvious purpose of recognition" demon- strates that the picketing at the Port Huron seawall job was for the purpose of recognition. I do not agree. The threatened shutdown of the Beacon Cove job was because the Company was in arrears on benefits. Exhibits received in evidence establish that the Union billed Shepard for some $1,700 claimed to be owing on fringe benefits, and Shepard paid such amount to the Union on November 10, 1970. Similarly, Warwick's threat of shutdown at the Grand Trunk Railroad job was because of these fringe benefit arrear- ages. The first picket signs, however, were described as stating that Shepard had no union contract. This language was modified about 10 days later to state that Shepard had vi- olated its agreement with the Union, which apparently it had. Mazurek also testified that Harrington asked him to sign with the Union, but that -he refused. An affidavit executed by Mazurek for, the Board makes no mention of this alleged conversation with Harrington. In view of Mazurek's admit- ted difficulty in recalling many events. I conclude that Har- rington made no such statement to him at the Grand Trunk Railroad job. At the Botsford Hospital job, witness Taylor, called on behalf of the General Counsel, admitted that Harrington did not say that the pickets would continue until Shepard signed a contract with the Union, but instead spoke of some disa- greement'concerning fringe benefits. On the Andorjob which commenced around December 16, there was no picketing. McDonald's threat to shut down that job was based upon the general contractor's violation of his contract with the Union requiring him to use union subcon- tractors. Finally, the Mt. Clemens seawall job which started around January 11, 1971, was accompanied by a meeting between Shepard and the Union at which Shepard admitted he could not and would not pay union scale. The Union then informed Shepard that it would inform the public that Shep- ard's employees work under substandard conditions. The picketing that followed referred only to the substandard wages paid by Shepard. Shepard's employee Rausch testified that Union Agent Warwick told him he ought to get Shepard to sign a contract so that Rausch would get more money for his crew. This, it could be argued, was a, demand for recogni- tion. It was not, however, made to Mazurek but only to an employee who was obviously not in a position to comply with Warwick's statement if it were really a demand for recogni- tion. Moreover, this isolated incident would hardly establish a recognitional objective by the Union. In Local 741 (Keith Riggs Plumbing), 137 NLRB 1125, the union solicited an employee of the company to join the union. The Board held that such an incident involving a single employee would not be sufficient to negate the union's repeated statements that the picketing was designed only to protect wages and other stan- dards. In Teamsters Local 200 (Bachman Furniture Com- pany), 172 NLRB No. 119, a union agent told a warehouse manager that the employees of the company needed the un- ion. In view of the union's protest of the company's substand- ard wages the Board held that the union agent's statement was insufficient to establish an unlawful objective. Here War- wick's statement to Rausch that Rausch ought to get Mazu- rek to join up in order to get more money for the crew can also be equated with the Union's efforts to raise Shepard's substandard wage rates rather than to achieve a collective- bargaining relationship. 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nor is this a case where the Union expressed its demands for area standards in terms of benefits set forth in the area contracts. See Local 899 (Giant Foods), 166 NLRB 818. Moreover, the activities of the Union were neither continuous nor simultaneous. Each event was separated from the next event by some space of time. Even were the picketing continu- ous it would not necessarily follow that the objectives of the Union were necessarily unchanged from the beginning of the picketing in the fall of 1970 through the Port Huron seawall job. See Local 500 (Mission Valley Inn), 140 NLRB 433, 439. Nor does it matter with respect to Section 8(b)(7) whether or not the picketing interfered with deliveries and services, pro- vided the picketing was not for an object of recognition or organization. Houston Building Council (Claude Everett Con- struction Company), 136 NLRB 321 I Conclude that the General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof to establish that the picketing by the Union at the Port Huron seawall job on and after March 23, 1971, violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) inasmuch as such picketing did not have a recognitional or organizational objective as evi- denced by the activities at that site, nor as evidenced by other activities of this Union prior thereto with respect to this Employer. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The General Counsel has not sustained his burden of proof to establish that the Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(7)(B) of the Act when it picketed Shepard Marine Con- struction Company on and after March 23, 1971. RECOMMENDED ORDER On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclu- sions of law I recommend that the, complaint in this case be dismissed in its entirety.